MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019454785 · doi:10.1049/iet-bmt.2013.0003

Vocabulary harmonisation for biometrics: the development of ISO/IEC 2382 Part 37

2013· article· en· W2019454785 on OpenAlexaff
James L. Wayman, Rene McIver, Peter Waggett, Stephen S. Clarke, Masanori Mizoguchi, Christoph Busch, Nicolas Delvaux, Andrey Zudenkov

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Biometrics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVocabularyComputer scienceBiometricsField (mathematics)CommissionEuropean commissionProcess (computing)Software engineeringComputer securityLinguisticsEuropean unionBusinessPolitical scienceLawProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study discusses a 10‐year effort by Standards Committee 37 of the International Organisation for Standardisation/International Electrotechnical Commission Joint Technical Committee 1 (ISO/IEC JTC1 SC37) to create a systematic vocabulary for the field of ‘biometrics’ based on international standards for vocabulary development. That process has now produced a new International Standard (ISO/IEC 2382‐37:2012), which conceptualises and defines 121 terms that are most central to the proposed field. This study will review some of the philosophical and operational principles of vocabulary development within SC37, present 11 of the most commonly used standardised terms with their definitions and discuss some of the conceptual changes implicit in the new vocabulary.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.012
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET BiometricsSame topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207